Table 2.
Detection frequencies (mean ± SE) of tigers, human presence types, and tiger prey species
| 2010 |
2011 |
|||
| Category | Inside park | Outside park | Inside park | Outside park |
| Tiger | 10 ± 1.8 | 6.7 ± 1* | 13.9 ± 2.5 | 2.3 ± 0.6* |
| Total people on foot | 456.8 ± 89.2* | 716.7 ± 152.3 | 745.4 ± 136.9* | 1,041.3 ± 207.2 |
| Local residents | 218.9 ± 73.9* | 688.5 ± 151 | 381.6 ± 99* | 1,003.8 ± 202.6 |
| Tourists | 101.3 ± 27.2 | 24.3 ± 11.1 | 109.3 ± 36.3 | 13.8 ± 7.1 |
| Army personnel | 136.6 ± 45.2* | 3.8 ± 2.1 | 254.5 ± 70.9* | 23.7 ± 14 |
| Vehicles | 339.7 ± 88.2 | 286.8 ± 193.9 | 455.4 ± 124.7 | 378 ± 252.67 |
| Total prey animals | 214.2 ± 37.8 | 142.5 ± 26.3 | 199.6 ± 28 | 187.3 ± 30 |
| Spotted deer | 163.6 ± 36.7 | 103.5 ± 25.4 | 164.6 ± 27.7 | 145.2 ± 27 |
| Barking deer | 18 ± 5.4 | 20.2 ± 4.4 | 7.4 ± 1.3 | 12.4 ± 1.9 |
| Wild boar | 17.7 ± 3.1 | 10.2 ± 2.2 | 14.9 ± 3.1 | 15.7 ± 3.4 |
| Sambar | 11.8 ± 4.1 | 8.7 ± 2.4 | 6.8 ± 2.2 | 13.9 ± 2.5 |
| Hog deer | 2.3 ± 0.9 | — | 3.7 ± 1.2 | — |
| Gaur | 0.8 ± 0.5 | — | 2.1 ± 1.7 | — |
Values in bold indicate within-year samples that were significantly different from one another (Mann–Whitney u test, P < 0.05). Hog deer and gaur were not detected outside the park in both years. Unlike detection frequency, estimates of tiger density are based on identified individuals and take into account imperfect detection. Consequently, in our study, tiger detection frequencies and density estimates inside and outside of the park differed relative to each other in 2010.
*Between-year samples within the same row were significantly different (Mann–Whitney u test, P < 0.05).